The Weisselberg indictment notes that it was Trump who signed off on the tuition checks for Weisselberg's grandkids.
Trump Org recorded the payments internally as compensation to Weisselberg, but did not report it for tax purposes.
Trump Org recorded the payments internally as compensation to Weisselberg, but did not report it for tax purposes.
Although it's pretty obvious that payments for Weisselberg's new carpets and flat-screen TVs were in fact employee compensation and not Trump Org business expenses, Trump Org made sure there was no room for confusion and dutifully recorded the payments as Weisselberg's income.
Keeping track off Weisselberg's off-the-books compensation was important for Trump Org, because his annual compensation was fixed at $940K. The off-the-books payments varied, but were tallied and combined with his W-2-recorded compensation so that the total always equaled $940K.
Intriguing. An attempted cover-up, but Weisselberg decided the best time to carry it out was in the middle of the 2016 election.
If Trump Org had paid for Weisselberg's rent and cars and furniture on top of whatever agreed-upon compensation Weisselberg was receiving, it still would have been criminal – but also much more awkward for prosecutors to try and prove.
That's the case I was expecting this to be.
That's the case I was expecting this to be.
But the case laid out in the NY indictment has no such ambiguities.
Trump Org didn't pay Weisselberg a dime more than it had to. But it arranged to pay a chunk of Weisselberg's salary in a way that let Trump Org avoid paying pay roll taxes, and Weisselberg avoid income taxes.
Trump Org didn't pay Weisselberg a dime more than it had to. But it arranged to pay a chunk of Weisselberg's salary in a way that let Trump Org avoid paying pay roll taxes, and Weisselberg avoid income taxes.
Hmm. If Weisselberg was merely "one of" the largest beneficiaries of the Trump Org tax evasion scheme... then who might hold the title of largest beneficiary?
The case against Trump Org laid out in the indictment is not some kind of technicality or "small potatoes."
You can't not prosecute this kind of conduct, unless you're willing to declare that corporate executives don't have to pay income taxes like everybody else.
You can't not prosecute this kind of conduct, unless you're willing to declare that corporate executives don't have to pay income taxes like everybody else.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
